By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

53 (1979) 1 W.L.R. 140154 (1982) 3 W.L.R. 1096 H.L55 (1985) L.R.C.(Const.) 94856 (1970) 1 All E.R 528 C.A at pp 533-53457 (1963) 2 all E.R 66And again Lord Denning M.R reiterated his warning in Breen vs. AmalgamatedEngineering Union58 that;“It does not matter whether its functions are described as judicial or quasi-judicialon the one hand or as administrative on the on the other hand or what you will.Still must act fairly. It must in a proper case give a party a chance to be heard.”In Tanzania the distinction between judicial and administrative actions for the purposesof judicial review w as put to a lasting rest by the Tanzania Court of Appeal in the case ofPatman Garments Industries Ltd. Vs Tanzania Manufacturers Ltd.59 as per the judgmentof Mwakasendo, J.A I would accordingly follow that decision.However in affording someone an opportunity of being heard, it does not matter if thehearing is done orally or by the medium of written statements-see El-Kindly, J. in thecase of Donald Kilala vs. Mwanza District Council.60“But whatever standard is adopted, one essential is that the person concernedshould have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case.”And more recently in the case of Mclnnes vs. onslow Fane & Another62 the Court ofAppeal of England held correctly in my view that where administrative as opposed tojudicial or quasi-judicial discretion was concerned, the duty to act fairly was moreappropriate than the duty to act in accordance with strict rules of natural justice, Theconcept of “fairness” is broad and flexible, its requirements varying according to thecircumstances.58 (1971) 1 All E.R 1148 at p. 115359 Court of Appeal of Tanzania, Civil appeal No. 15 of 1981(Unreported)60 (1973) L.R.T. No.2061 (1949) 1 All E.R 109 at p. 11862 (1978)3 All E.R.211134